Walt Disney is Not a Film Company

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Who else thought that The Walt Disney Company was primarily a film company?

Large Image  SPOILER: Show

It seems like Bob Iger really doesn't care as much about Star Wars not doing so hot among fans. Like, I always knew that was the case, but I didn't know it was to this extent.

Marin Scorsese was right, films have become just a series of theme park attractions. I mean, the industry is literally being shaped and influenced by a theme parks company. (This also explains why Bob Iger replaced himself with his theme parks division guy as CEO.)

Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193 ... g-segment/

[Zusuchan]

Well, Wikipedia calls Disney a ''diversified multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate''. Film is obviously a part of the ''entertainment'' side. It's easy to think of Disney as a film company mostly because those are the most culturally relevant and discussed products (being a film fan helps too), but Disney hasn't really been a film company for quite some time. But calling it a theme parks company is wrong too, since there are many other things that contribute to the revenue. It's really an entertainment company, as Wikipedia puts it.

[silvermoonlight]

I watched this video recently, I thought it was an interesting point that the movie side of Disney is such a small percentage the theme parks being the other. I find it deeply unsettling that Disney owns so many franchises now and I wouldn't care if they were creating good media but there not and I recall someone pointing out that Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker's ending is in fact a direct copy of Endgame which is everyone meeting to face a big bad, which to me is deeply troubling.

It means there is a real lack of creativity because these franchises are not being given to fresh new directors or upcoming directors, there instead just being handed around the Disney inner circle and this means lazy story telling lack of creativity and a lack of fresh blood leading to poor final products. Also, I didn't find frozen 2 or Wreck it Ralph 2 to be good films they lacked the heart and depth of the originals in my view, which also means the animation side is suffering, even with brand-new films.

[Blockio]

That feels like it's a bit of a false conclusion, especially given that the majority of movie/tv franchises make way more revenue from merchandise than they do from box office.
Look at Gundam for example, the Gunpla sales alone way overshadow the revenue made directly from the airing, but noone is calling Sunrise "not an anime company" for it

[C.T.1290]

Walt Disney IS a film company, and it grew into something more over time due to its popularity.

And we saw how its influence spread worldwide, with its own set of theme parks in some of the other countries, with two in the U.S. Not to mention the themes of a lot of its films which inspired a generation both old and new.

Needless to say, it has touched a heart of millions.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

So the title is admittedly a bit hyperbolic, but I don't think Disney is primarily concerned with feature films. Also, their media networks division is further divided within that category, far less Sao than their theme parks division. Like, you have ESPN, ABC, Disney XD, Disney Channel, Vice, all that stuff, just in that one category. Disney+ is probably in the media networks devision as well.

I could get into the pedantic of how TV networks does not equal film, but that divide is slowly melting away in pure artistic senses. GoT, for example, feels more like a series of films than it does a TV show. I think Disney's The Mandalorian is doing the same thing. However, I still consider their media networks division different enough to not conflate it with Disney's film output.

So, sure, they're a film company, in the strictest sense that they are a company that makes films, but that's not their primary goal and it hasn't been for a while. All of their features as of late have all been to promote their various theme park experiences, and that's been public knowledge for a while now. Their films are subservient to their theme parks, not the other way around.

[TheFriskyIan]

*Ahem*

While I may still be an hourly drone, I believe I can chime in on this subject. The parks are Disney's money makers but it's increasing revenue year after year wouldn't be possible without A. Price hikes on merchandise that completely dwarf the production cost and B. New merchandise specifically themed towards these new movies. Classic original idea rides are increasingly being replaced with new rides catered towards whatever film would fit in the building. In Epcot alone we replaced Maelstrom in Norway with a Frozen ride, the France show with Ratatouille, and Universe of Energy with Guardians of The Galaxy. Without these new movies, that graph would look significantly different in terms of park revenue. I'm currently deployed to the Mexico pavilion and half our merchandise is all Coco and whenever someone comes in asking for [X item we don't have] it's just more Coco stuff they want. I couldn't imagine Disney keeping anywhere near these same numbers without all these movies they churn out.

I'd also like to point out the only reason Disney made a profit in it's second quarter despite their park closure was because of Disney+.